`Modern` learning methods : rhetoric and reality - further to Sadler-Smith et al

Working in the UK, Sadler-Smith, Down and Lean, in their article “‘Modern’ learning methods: rhetoric and reality”, Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 4, 2000, pp. 474-90, have shown that distance learning methods are neither favoured nor perceived as effective by enterprises pursuing training that yields a competitive edge. They have suggested that these methods need to be integrated with other more conventional on-job training methods. This paper, based on Australian research, shows a tension between the requirements of flexible training methods based on distance learning methods, and the characteristics that typify learners and their workplaces. That identified tension is used to suggest how an integration of training methods may be effected in workplaces.

[P]lucky Jane et al: ideal types in the legal academy?

This article started as a response to a decision by Deakin University's Law School late last year to embark upon a major recruitment of new staff. That decision caused the writer to wonder what published sources of advice were available to assist aspiring legal academics in choosing and shaping a career. To date it would seem that whilst there is no dearth of sources about what law schools should teach, or on the content and structure of the curriculum, research on the selection and formation of academics is somewhat less common. This is changing. In 2003 a short biographical study of six law teachers, based on structured interviews, was published and in 2004, a major study of the identity of 54 law teachers became available. There have also been significant studies on the particular issues encountered by female academics in the legal academy.

More appraisal please : a commentary on Pfaff et al. (2007) 'Relations between mechanisms of CNS arousal and mechanisms of stress'

This article provides a brief commentary on Pfaff et al's timely review of the relations between mechanisms of CNS arousal and mechanisms of stress. Pfaff and colleagues use the review as a platform to propose the existence of a coherent stress-arousal state. We suggest that this proposal is, on a number of grounds, flawed. In turn, we counter that the while the states of stress and arousal are related they are as entities fundamentally separate. Moreover, we propose that any productive attempt to unite the two states must acknowledge the importance of and therefore centrally include higher order integrative phenomena, such as, appraisal.